Maude de Valerie

Virginia Republicans try to have it both ways:

Virginia Republicans would make me laugh more if they didn't make me cry... but sometimes what they try to get away with is just so effin ridiculous!

So, the latest is this--after years of complaining that Democrats are elitist "limousine liberals," now they're claiming that Democrats are welfare queens and felons.

First we have Del. Todd Gilbert's ridiculous statement regarding the restoration of voting rights for felons: "I don' t know a lot of young Republicans who end up being felons. Clearly the groups that are soliciting these felons to get their rights restored are predisposed to be in support of Obama, and I am sure this registration effort is designed to help their candidate." Gilbert is conveniently ignoring two important facts here: one, that activists have been trying to modernize Virginia's draconian rules regarding voting right restoration for some time (Warner streamlined the process considerably before anyone ever even heard of Obama); and two, that there are plenty of Republicans who are felons! Hey Del. Gilbert, ever hear of Ollie North? (oh, of course, excuse me, his convictions were overturned). Well, how 'bout good ol' Scooter LIbby? Sushi-eatin' Jack Abramoff? Rep. Bob Ney? Rep. Duke Cunningham? VA repub party leader Ed Matricardi? Child-porn possessor/Republican presidential elector Parker J. Bena? Va Republican fundraiser (and Bob McDonnell campaign manager) Robin Vanderwall? (Now, there's a young republican for you, soliciting sex with minors over the internet!) And finally, Felon-in-Chief GW Bush (oh pardon me, he was never convicted of cocaine possession, though he's all but admitted it... but he was arrested at least twice, and once convicted of DUI).


Then again, even if we're not felons, we must be on the dole, according to one of our favorite right-wing wacks, Del. Dave Albo: "My bet is that it's those who are on food stamps and government services who tend to be more Democratic."

So what happened to all the "limousine-liberal," "elitist" rhetoric? It didn't work, so they're trying a new wack--er, tack, I reckon. But guess what--this one won't work either... so back to the drawing board, guys!

What's Wrong with Democrats...
I'll tell ya, it's sometimes downright embarrassing to be a member of such a self-sabotaging group. I used to be gleeful when repugnicans ate their young (that is, attacked moderates by running right-wing idealogues against their own incumbents). At least we're not usually that dumb [except for Cindy Sheehan and her supporters--and don't get me wrong, Cindy's a hero, but run against the most powerful Dem in the House? Come on, put your energy and $ to good use and run against a republican, dammit!].

But, now the left is turning on Obama because of his "move to the right." Well, I'm sorry. The run for the nomination is over, and now it's time to run for the general election. If you can't figure out the difference between defining yourself against a fellow democrat when running for your party's nomination, and running against a republican, you shouldn't be commenting on politics. You can't bloody win a general election by being left-wing. And, Obama was never left-wing to begin with. (There's a reason why it's called a wing, you know). He's always made a point of being able to work across the aisle in the Senate. Were you paying attention before you started dissin' all us Hillary supporters? (And yes, I preferred Hillary, and I'm sorry that the left is still as vitriolically misogynistic as it was at the beginning of the second wave--how little far we've come!) Despite my preference for Hillary, I've always felt Barack was presidential material, and now that he has been chosen through the democratic process, I will support him all the way to the White House.

It's not that I"m not disappointed about Obama's statement about the SCOTUS decision about the Louisiana DP case--I am. It's not that I'm not disappointed in his vote on FISA--I am. But, NO one is ever going to be the perfect candidate. Instead of publicly tearing down our chosen candidate--we need to build him up and show the voters how and why it's best that he be our next President, not John McCain. Because believe me, the repugs are going to be tearing him down like anything--we don't need to be doin' their job for them.

Get it now?

Christianist or Pharmacist?

The Washington Post reports today that a new pharmacy is opening in NoVA--one which will not sell contraceptives. These folks are calling themselves "pro-life" (who do they think they kidding?) but what they really are is anti-woman. Which brings us back to misogyny (no, I'm not going to get into the nomination again, but it's just another example of how endemic it is) that masquerades as something else. [btw, check out the photo of the pharmacist dude--scary-lookin' child-porn-viewin' creep, or what? and why do these fanatics always look like that? Oh.]

Can they get away with this? Pharmacies are businesses of public accommodation, and so federal anti-discrimination laws apply. But... is it discrimination to refuse to dispense some legal medications? And so, do anti-disc laws apply in this instance? maybe not, if they clearly label themselves as christianist anti-contraceptive drugstores--they might then not really be a pharmacy, but a more limited-purpose dispensary, akin to a Chinese medicine apothecary. And since they don't sell condoms, they can argue (though perhaps not effectively?) that they don't discriminate against women (tho they do, apparently, sell viagra. Hmm).

Pharmacists' "conscience clause" laws that have been pushed through state legislatures by christianist extremists haven't been tested in the courts. But looking through to the logical extremes: what would we do about christian scientist pharmacists who wouldn't dispense ANY drugs; veggie pharmacists who wouldn't dispense medications tested on animals (all, no?); a scientologist pharmacist who won't fill scrips for psych meds... where does it stop? Do we need a different pharmacy on each street corner to accommodate the differing religious views of the various dispensing pharmacists?

These "pro-life" pharmacists are conveniently ignoring the fact that BCPs are prescribed for different conditions in addition to their contraceptive purpose. Is it the pharmacist's role to decide which person's health situation merits treatment and which not? Of course not. It's clearly a misnomer for these pharmacists to refer to themselves as "pro-life"---denying someone medications that may improve their health or save their lives is hardly evincing a reverence for life---a woman whose health would be seriously threatened if she were to become pregnant could be harmed by a pharmacist's refusal to dispense EC.

Luckily, the National Women's Law Center is on it--providing advocacy materials for fighting these folks. As is "religion link," providing a wide range of resources, and suggesting ways for reporters to question (a good way to avoid adopting the christianists' frames) when reporting on this issue (remember, not all religious are fanatics. Some are really nice people!).

I suppose economic reality will prevent either a small full-service pharmacy or another conventional bigbox drugstore opening in the same shopping center or immediate vicinity--so the possibility that people will vote with their pocketbook by choosing not to shop at the drugstore for other drugs/ convenience items, and thus drying up their business is remote. But I hope those folks in Chantilly boycott the fuck out of that place.

Vote for Pedro
a couple of years ago, a friend of mine and I got into an argument about whether or not Bush was an idiot. Before I identify which side of that argument I was on, let me say first, that if your response is "well, naturally he is!" then my burgeoning hopes for the future of the Democratic party are for naught [subject of future blog post]. And second, I am well aware that Bush is not an intellectual giant [just for the record].

Ok, so, I've already revealed which side of the argument I was on. Well, anyway. For now, I'm going to save for another day the discussion of why people thinkin' that Bush is an idiot is the reason why he's serving his second term. What is reminding me of this conversation now, though, are recent remarks by Sen. Grassley (R iowa).

The connection? It's what I think is most insidious in politicians: not stupidity (leaving aside whether any individual politician is or is not stupid) but cynicism.

Cynicism in politicians is, among other things, the belief (expressed through actions) that WE are stupid. Thus Virgil Goode's pandering and false math (see The Fifth District Race is on! below); Bush's fake Texas accent; and Sen. Grassley's disingenuous statements about how corn ethanol cannot possibly be the cause of the spike in food prices around the world, because, shucks, we just can't eat the kind of corn that ethanol is made from: "It’s not something you’d sit down at your kitchen table and eat.” Well golly day, then what's everyone crying about? ...Corn? Why don't they just eat cake?

Well, duh, Sen. Grassley, of course the corn used in animal feeds and ethanol production is not the same as the sweet corn people set on their table. But the corn that people eat around the world is not sweet corn. They eat field corn, maize, which is, in fact, basically the same kind as animal feed/ethanol corn--it's hard, non-sweet corn that is ground into cornmeal, mixed into animal feeds, and distilled into ethanol.

But, the main problem is not that we're snatching corn out of babies' mouths to make gasoline with. The fact is, the government's incentives for growing corn for ethanol production means that more farmers are growing biofuels and fewer are growing foods for human consumption--crops are being churned into ethanol, not ground into meal. And, the demand for biofuels is driving up prices for all grains across the board. This all would be true no matter what grain we used, or even if we were making ethanol out of thistles--when farmers turn away from food production, growing or diverting crops for a non-food purpose, we are diminishing our world-wide food security. We are taking land out of food production and turning it to fuel production.

Now, THIS is stupid. I've written before on how nonsensical ethanol is as a way to independence from foreign oil. But now were beyond nonsensical and looking at harmful. Children with kwashiorkor and beriberi--remember Ethiopia? It's back.

OK, so, do I think Sen. Grassley is dumb when he says ethanol is not driving up the price of food, because people don't eat field corn? Hell, no. He's cynical. He knows very well what he's doing, which is earning big bucks for his Iowa corn-farming constituents. But does he think we're dumb, to buy that argument? Apparently. And that's cynicism in politics--from Iowa corn farmer to New England WASP, it's the trademark of Republicans--to be so sure that we'll buy any bridge they've got to sell. Whether we're dumb enough to believe it and buy, or dumb enough to believe that THEY are dumb and actually believe they've got a bridge to sell, they win, and we lose. That's their whole strategy {hyperbole--I'm sure they have a few other tricks].

What can we do about it? Well, first, don't fall into the trap of thinking a politician is stupid, when you've just bought the brooklyn bridge: they're dumb like a fox. And second, always question--why does this politician say something that sounds, if not dumb, at least counterintuitive? Could it be that they know very well that it's total bullshit? Finally, enough with the ethanol already! It's a wild dream--not the solution.

The Contest Ends...

So, it appears that after the decisions regarding Michigan and Florida, Obama has the nomination wrapped up, and Hillary is saying she'll be veep if asked. That outcome has appeared inevitable for some time now, and I reckon we'll hear some announcement from Hillary soon. Since I've always liked both candidates, and wished they were not running against each other (tho preferring Hillary--for THIS race) that's fine with me.

But, what's not so fine with me is how people have been acting in the process. As purely a social observer, not as someone with a stake in the outcome (right, as if that's really possible!), it's been interesting to note how much both misogyny and racism have been uncovered in this race. What's telling (and disconcerting) is that while the racism has been overt (voters in Kentucky say straight out "I won’t vote for a colored man. He’ll put too many coloreds in jobs") the misogyny is more subtle--and therefore, harder to confront without seeming to be sour grapes, or just general whingeing, or worse, playing the "woman" card.

One of the things that has intrigued me as I talk about the nomination with people is the different attitudes of Hillary supporters vs. Obama supporters. Even the kindest, gentlest Obama supporters seem to become rather viciously unhinged when they talk about Hillary; while Hillary supporters, though able to articulate their support for Hillary or their concerns about Obama, don't seem to make personal attacks on Obama.

I suppose the Obama fanatics will say that it's because he's so saintly there's nothing bad to be said about him, while Hillary is [insert your favorite invective here]. But, I think there's something more to it than that. First of all, that's too simplistic, and too dichotomous. And, it's too emotional--these people practically foam at the mouth. I think there's two (connected) factors at play here. I think it's partly that racism is a greater taboo among many in our society than sexism. And I think it's also because people are not confronting their misogyny, because they're in denial about it.

And, I'm not excusing the female Hillary haters, of whom there are many. But, I will explain it: internalized oppression causes women and people of color to subscribe to the prejudice of the larger culture and, often, be harsher on others of their group than are those of the dominant culture. It's sort of a useful phenomenon as far as the dominant culture is concerned--like self-policing! No need to be heavy-handed in enforcing the limits when those limited will limit themselves--no fuss, no muss!

I suppose it's useless to hold unconscious attitudes against people, as they're not acting with intent. But, is it real lack of awareness or wilful ignorance?

Oh Gasoline, why cain't you be cheap?
I have mixed feelings about the price of gas. On the one hand, it's certainly hurting me personally, as I've chosen to live my life far enough out of town that I need to drive quite a bit. On the other hand, gasoline causes huge harms to the environment, and only high prices will change the way we use it.

As gas edges up to $4 a gallon, people have finally started making these changes. And of course, some leap into unwise purchases (you know how we americans are--any excuse to buy something new!)

We actually can, without making major purchases or selling our houses (yeah, I've even been thinking of that, much as it pains me) change the way we use energy--like our driving habits. I've been avoiding unnecessary trips (in addition, my teeth-jarringly-warped brake rotors mean I avoid using the brakes as much as possible, which causes me to drive a lot more gently--using less gas, thereby).

What's outrageous, though, is that big oil is sitting fatter than ever on its pile of profits, forcing out gas-station owners by greedily grasping for more. Why is it that so few people are paying attention to this? (Or maybe they are, and that's contributing to Bush's free-falling approval rating? Oh, I hope so!) And what's most outrageous about this situation is that the forces of supply and demand are not determining retail gasoline prices. Beyond the market fluctuations affecting crude prices, Big oil is completely in control of the price we pay at the pump. And, don't get me started on the proposed "gas tax holiday" which will accomplish exactly nothing other than increasing our national debt.

The manipulation of prices at the pump became obvious a couple of years ago--the morning news would announce the price of crude, and that afternoon the price of gas at the pump immediately increased. I made the incorrect assumption that gas-station owners were opportunistically cashing in. But as it turns out, Big Oil is fine-tuning its "wholesale" price (that is, what it charges station owners) and controlling the stations' retail prices in a truly Machiavellian way. NPR has done a good job of analyzing all the factors that go into gas prices.

I have a bunch of friends who are into the concept of "peak oil." This is all very well, but nevertheless (IMHO) irrelevant, because we need to make changes in our oil use now, for the sake of the environment, regardless of whether or not we're about to run dry. And despite the fact that I'm feeling the pinch, and am pissed at how Bush & Co. have set the oil companies up for megaprofits and control of our economy, I'm hopeful that perhaps at last we have the incentive to change our ways. Time will tell, I reckon.

The Fifth District Race is On!

On Saturday Tom Perriello officially became the Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives from the Fifth Congressional District of Virginia.

People have been asserting for a long time that Virgil Goode, the incumbent republican, can't be beaten. But, to quote my favorite movie: "nonsense! You're only saying that because no one ever has!" [extra points if you get the reference].

Actually, while he certainly has a very "safe" gerrymandered district, and a sort of legacy seat (his dad, Virgil Goode, Sr. was a popular politician from the region) Virgil has made himself vulnerable on a number of fronts: voting against the GI Bill (I mean, how dumb can ya get?) and against mother's day . He also has been caught up in a campaign-finance scandal.

The received wisdom is that no one from outside Virgil's home territory (the southern part of the district) can win it. But not everyone in the southern part of the district is in love with Virgil, as was noted in this article from 1995. The fact is that the world is changing and Virgil's not changing with it. He's still trying to appeal to his base, and only to his base--which may be a good short-term strategy, but it's a loser in the long run. For instance, look at one of his hallmarks--his unabashed bigotry. This may still play well with a certain constituency in that part of the district. But George Allen found out the hard way that it's not a sure-fire strategy for winning in a modern, demographically-diverse state (which Virginia is rapidly becoming).

Goode's recent press release justifying the Iraq war by (falsely) asserting that more Americans die as a result of illegal immigrants than in Iraq show that he's still trying to play this losing hand. Aside from the clearly spurious math (which right-wing wack groups have been calculating on their skewed-statistics calculators for quite a while now), it completely misses the point, which common-sense voters can see for themselves (and which street preacher/singer/voice of conscience/Charlottesville character Uriah J Fields articulates in a recent letter to the editor): that our country should aspire to a higher standard than that of drunk drivers and murderers. The great thing about this response is that it removes the debate out of the realm of numbers (which most people pretty much ignore) and puts it on moral ground--where Tom Perriello clearly wins.

Tom has been raising an extraordinary amount of money, making him a highly viable candidate, and bringing national attention and dollars to the race. He has a long row to hoe (and he needs to learn a more dynamic speaking style), but I think he has a real chance. And, the previous challengers (Meredith Richards and Al Weed) did much to revitalize the moribund Democratic party in the southside. Tom can build on those gains, and win the District!

Axes of Oppressions

George Will's column this past sunday brought some issues to the fore for me that have been percolating around for a while. As usual, Will gets some things right, but most things wrong.

Some of Obama's supporters (as well as non-supporters, like Will) are making a big deal about Clinton's supporters' (and Clinton's) supposed sense of "entitlement" to the presidency because of her gender. Although I think there's a stronger case to be made that misogyny is playing a large role in this race, there are some old-school feminists who feel that it's time for a woman to be president and that should be of overarching importance. I don't happen to share that view. Mostly because, as a yellow-dog Democrat, I want, first: the most electable candidate, and second: the best candidate (one hopes these are the same, but unfortunately, not always). But, what's most fascinating to me is how we as a society perceive/respond to oppressed groups, as manifested by this primary race.

We seem to have developed a sort of "heirarchy of oppressions," with different groups claiming to be more oppressed than another. Put another way, if you could create a graph of marginal group status (race, gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, social class, etc) you'd have to have multiple axes. In this instance, Barack is up fairly high on the "race" axis, while Hillary is all the way out on the "gender" axis. If this is really how we measure things, then Hillary is more "oppressed" than Barack, and therefore more "owed the prize" (to borrow from Will) than Barack. And if a candidate was a black woman, she'd score even higher on both axes--for critics like Will, and those he tries to denounce, this candidate would be "extra entitled."